Farmington Zoning Board Denies Variance for Large Rt. 11 Subdivision Proposal

The Farmington Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 2-3 on April 2 to deny a variance requested by Apex Land Solutions for Map 14, Lot 22, a roughly 139-acre parcel along Route 11. The developer had asked relief from Agricultural-Residential zone requirements for minimum lot size and road frontage to enable a large mixed residential and commercial subdivision; the board failed to make the required variance findings on several criteria.

Ryan Heath, partner and agent for Apex Land Solutions, told the board the parcel’s size and split zoning make strict enforcement of the AR rules economically unworkable. Heath said the company initially proposed as many as 80 lots but had reduced a maximum to 60 in response to community feedback. "We are proposing approximately 29.5 acres of land to be placed in conservation," Heath said, and described about 22.5 acres of frontage intended for commercial development on Route 11 and municipal water service for the residential lots.

Heath argued the plan aligns with Farmington’s Master Plan goals for smart growth and mixed-use development and that municipal water access reduces the need for the AR zone’s 40,000-square-foot contiguous buildable-area requirement intended for lots using private wells. He also said using municipal water and smaller lot footprints would make lots more affordable and generate tax revenue for the town.

Multiple residents and abutters urged caution. Ten Rod Road resident Charlie King cited trip-generation figures used in a recent Planning Board study — about nine trips per day for a three-bedroom house — and said that would translate to roughly 500 daily trips for 60 houses. "That’s the number from a proposal based upon what the standards would be," King said, urging the board to consider traffic impacts.

Esther Kennedy, an abutter on Route 11, said she was concerned about roughly 60 septic systems above a local aquifer and asked for more data on groundwater and runoff before major zoning relief is granted. "We do not have the data — this could adversely affect my property and the town’s water supply," she said.

Resident Ron Boisvert voiced strong objections to the application’s technical claims and to aspects of the developer’s statements about future construction plans, soils and DOT contact, arguing the project would not meet the intent of the Agricultural-Residential zone.

Board members took the five standard variance findings separately. Motions that the variance (1) would not be contrary to the public interest, (2) would observe the spirit of the ordinance, and (3) would achieve substantial justice each failed on 2-3 votes. The board agreed unanimously (5-0) that surrounding property values would not be diminished. A motion that literal enforcement would constitute unnecessary hardship failed 2-3. A final motion to grant the variance for up to 60 units failed 2-3 (Jim Horgan and Ron Morgan in favor; Larry Zampieri, John Scruton and John David Aylard opposed), and Chairman John Scruton announced the variance request was denied.

The board and several speakers noted that many of the technical issues raised — detailed traffic analyses, engineering for road access on Route 11, wetland crossings and septic design — are topics for subsequent Planning Board or state permitting reviews if a future applicant or proponent returns with engineered plans. The meeting closed with no new business; the board adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

What happens next: The variance was denied by the Zoning Board. Any future development on the parcel would require either a different application that satisfies AR standards or changes through Planning Board review, state permitting and/or a town-initiated zoning amendment. The board’s votes show disagreement over whether the parcel’s circumstances warrant relief from the 3-acre/ frontage standards.